Alleged violation of a township blight ordinance; Circuit court jurisdiction; MCL 600.605; District court jurisdiction over an alleged violation of a township ordinance; MCL 41.183(6); A circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction to issue an injunction; Cherry Growers, Inc. v Michigan Processing Apple Growers, Inc; A circuit court’s handling of nuisance claims; MCL 600.2940(1); A district court’s lack of jurisdiction over equitable actions; MCL 600.8315; Waiver; Harboring error as an appellate parachute; Competent, material, & substantial evidence; City of Romulus v Michigan Dep’t of Envtl Quality; VanZandt v State Employees’ Ret Sys; “Junk”; Effect of “or”; Paris Meadows, LLC v Kentwood

The court held that the circuit court did not err by ordering defendant to clean up his property and pay a court-appointed receiver. Plaintiff-township filed an action alleging defendant was in violation of its blight ordinance. Meanwhile, the township’s board met and adopted a resolution finding that both of defendant’s properties were in violation of the ordinance. It then filed an amended complaint. The circuit court eventually entered its final order, requiring defendant to pay the receiver and clean up the properties as directed. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the township was actually pursuing an ordinance violation over which the district court had exclusive jurisdiction. While MCL 41.183(6) provides district courts jurisdiction over “violation of a township ordinance, it does not divest the circuit court of jurisdiction over actions for the abatement of a nuisance and for injunctive relief.” The court also rejected his claim that the blight ordinance was invalid because the township failed to properly enact it, noting that “although technically ‘raised’ before the circuit court, the argument was abandoned when the first motion raising the issue was withdrawn by [defendant] and the second was dismissed without prejudice.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that the circuit court erred by affirming the township board’s resolution finding his properties violated the blight ordinance. Although defendant would have preferred the board credit his evidence, “there was an abundance of evidence upon which the [b]oard could base its decision to find that the objects, vehicles, and structures on the property were visible from the roadway or off-site, as required by the blight ordinance.” In addition, given that “semi-trailers, like campers, can become worn-out, unusable, or discarded, the mere fact that the trailers lack a motor does not immunize them from being considered junk under the plain language of the blight ordinance.” Thus, the court found “no basis to overturn the circuit court’s order finding that the [b]oard’s decision was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.” Affirmed.